The results of a several more tests for the Davenport DNA Surname Project have arrived. We are trying to get DNA samples from all of the branches of the various Davenport lines around the world to see how we are related. For more information and to see the results go to >http://www.DavenportDNA.com< So far we have 105 participants with results in for 86. --------------- Two sets of results are from Pamunkey Davenports. The first, kit # 58147, resides in Texas, as did the last couple generations of his ancestors. He believed his branch ran: Davis Davenport > Martin > William > Thomas > George W > George > etc... He was confident of his research back to George W and there was some evidence that George W was same individual found in the Pamunkey line. His results matched the Pamunkey line exactly on 37 of 37 markers. So indeed, he is a Pamunkey - a descendent of Davis - and his paper genealogy tells us the connection is through George W. The second Pamunkey is kit # 64304. His branch is Davis > Martin > Glover > Mathew > John > David > etc... There was no surprise that his Y-DNA matched the other Pamunkey's. The results were 36/37. Two items I should point out. Both of these participants were fairly confident of their connection to the Pamunkey line - but they tested anyway. This actually helps other Pamunkey's more than it helps themselves. So far, we have tested 12 documented Davis descendents representing three of Davis' sons. This helps establish a "baseline" for what the Y-DNA looks like for each branch. We might discover that one branch has a certain mutation while the others do not. (Mutations are neither good nor bad. They are just random changes on the markers tested). With this information, we can help place those of "unknown" ancestry who match the Pamunkey's into a specific branch. We currently have five of these unknowns, but we still don't have enough detail to place them yet. This works the same way for other lines too. The second item is that one of the "participants" is female. She was doing the research and it was her grandmother who was the Davenport. Since she, nor her grandmother, would have the Y-chromosome, which contains the DNA we test, she needed to find someone to act as her "proxy". She found a male Davenport cousin who was also descended from her g-grandfather to donate his Y-DNA. A large percentage of our participants are proxy's for women, so ladies - you can get involved. ----------------- The next participant, kit # 68055, can trace his ancestry back to Mahlon Davenport who was born about 1797 in New Jersey. Mahlon moved to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania in the 1820's and is believed to be the grandson of Leonard Davenport. Leonard is part of the Humphrey Davenport of Barbados line. The results came back with a 36/37 match. So there definitely is a Humphrey connection. While on the topic of Humphrey - we had some exciting news in the past month. The Y-DNA for the Humphrey line is very "unique". In three and a half years, no individual tested in any other surname project, (over 100,000 samples), has come close to what the Humphrey line has. In other words - the only results that are even remotely close to a Humphrey descendent is another Humphrey descendent. Well, that all changed last month. We suddenly had a 37/37 match with a Calkins. A cousin of that Calkins individual was tested and confirmed the match. They don't match any other Calkins and can trace their branch back to John Calkins, born in 1785 in Chenago County, New York. A 37/37 Humphrey/Calkins match probably means a common ancestor in the last couple hundred years. Since we can track Humphrey and his descendents back to the mid 1600's, it is unlikely they descend from any recent Calkins. Most likely it was some kind of "non-paternity event". Somewhere up the Calkins line, the father was not who we thought it was. There could be several possibilities. For example, the Davenports and Calkins were neighbors. The Davenports have an infant son - Jr. Something happens to the Davenport parents and Jr becomes an orphan. The Calkins take in Jr and give him the Calkins surname. Now Jr Calkins has Humphrey Davenport Y-DNA which is then passed down to his descendents. Both Davenport and Calkins researchers are now looking for both a place and time when both lines could have come together. ------------------ Participant # 70488 is a Rev. John Descendent - Rev. John > John > John > John > Deodate > Deodate. As expected, he matched the other Rev. John's 12/12. There has been much research on the Rev. John line, and it is one of the few Davenport lines that can actually document the connection to England. However, we are very limited in the number of his descendents in the DNA Project. We need more, coming from multiple branches, to help verify our lone 37 marker participant. ------------------ Finally, from England, we have #49751. He traces his ancestry to Cheshire in the 1800's, but unfortunately we don't have any more information. He does match the other English Davenports, (which match the Rev. John, Thomas of Dorchester, and Albemarle's), on 37 markers. He is a definite "person of interest" so we will continue to investigate. While we're on the subject of English Davenports - we have funding available to pay for tests for a male Davenport descendent of Thomas Davenport of Lower Withington. Thomas was born about 1700. If you know of any potential candidates - please contact me. ------------------ About six months ago, our testing company increased their product line. They came out with a 67 marker test. The previous high resolution test was 37 markers. Generally, the more markers, the better. As I mentioned in my last post : " It gives us more tools to work with. One of the most useful features of DNA testing is finding a mutation here or there. Mutations are neither good nor good, they are just minor changes. This mutation is then passed down to all future generations of Davenport males. Thus, if someone tested out to be a Pamunkey, a mutation might help place him into a particular branch. This will be especially useful for lines where few mutations have been recorded, like the Thomas of Dorchester group. We now have more "mutation opportunities"." Anyway, over the next few months, we had many participants upgrade to the 67 marker test. To date we have the results back from 14 of them. Although we really don't yet have enough results to compare within the individual lines, we do have some interesting results to report. At 37 markers, the Rev. John, Thomas of Dorchester, and Albemarle lines were very similar, but they each had one or two mutations to help distinguish them. This group also matches several of our English participants, but there just wasn't enough information to zoom in on a connection. Now with the 30 extra markers, we have found that the Albemarle's appear to have a common ancestor with a participant descended from the Davenports of Great Wigston, Leicestershire, England. Currently we have researchers on both sides of the Atlantic checking into it. So this is also a call for English Davenports - we need more samples!! One of the ongoing Davenport genealogy mysteries is the parentage of Davis Davenport. His line does not match any other Davenport line. So, not only have we been comparing his descendents to each other, we've also been watching for connections to other surnames. The Pamunkey's have a fairly common set of values for their Y-DNA and we get hundreds of "false positives" for the 12 and 25 marker lower resolution tests. As we increase the number of markers, these tend to filter out. Now with 67 markers, the Pamunkey's have a signal non-Davenport match - an individual with the Lee surname - 64/67. This is close enough to get serious about. We are waiting on more information from the Lee participant. ------------------ This and all previous reports can be seen on the News page at >http://www.DavenportDNA.com If anyone would like to join the DNA project or has any questions please contact me. Bill Davenport Davenport Surname DNA Project Administrator >wbdave@aol.com

Mr. Dave. Do you have an e-mail address for the George W. Davenport #58147 mentioned below? I believe that he is the brother of my Clarissa H. Davenport born circa 1805. I would like to correspond with him if he is agreeable to this. I have lost Letitia Wharton Davenport, wife of Thomas Davenport, after the 1830 Census in Lauren's District, South Carolina. Does anyone on this site know any thing further about her? Thomas mentions her in his will (wife Litty) but does not name their minor children. Charlene Moss --- WBDave <wbdave@aol.com> wrote: > The results of a several more tests for the > Davenport DNA Surname Project have arrived. We are > trying to get DNA samples from all of the branches > of the various Davenport lines around the world to > see how we are related. For more information and to > see the results go to >http://www.DavenportDNA.com< > So far we have 105 participants with results in for > 86. > --------------- > > Two sets of results are from Pamunkey Davenports. > The first, kit # 58147, resides in Texas, as did the > last couple generations of his ancestors. He > believed his branch ran: Davis Davenport > Martin > > William > Thomas > George W > George > etc... He was > confident of his research back to George W and there > was some evidence that George W was same individual > found in the Pamunkey line. His results matched the > Pamunkey line exactly on 37 of 37 markers. So > indeed, he is a Pamunkey - a descendent of Davis - > and his paper genealogy tells us the connection is > through George W. > > The second Pamunkey is kit # 64304. His branch is > Davis > Martin > Glover > Mathew > John > David > > etc... There was no surprise that his Y-DNA matched > the other Pamunkey's. The results were 36/37. > > Two items I should point out. Both of these > participants were fairly confident of their > connection to the Pamunkey line - but they tested > anyway. This actually helps other Pamunkey's more > than it helps themselves. So far, we have tested 12 > documented Davis descendents representing three of > Davis' sons. This helps establish a "baseline" for > what the Y-DNA looks like for each branch. We might > discover that one branch has a certain mutation > while the others do not. (Mutations are neither good > nor bad. They are just random changes on the markers > tested). With this information, we can help place > those of "unknown" ancestry who match the Pamunkey's > into a specific branch. We currently have five of > these unknowns, but we still don't have enough > detail to place them yet. This works the same way > for other lines too. > > The second item is that one of the "participants" is > female. She was doing the research and it was her > grandmother who was the Davenport. Since she, nor > her grandmother, would have the Y-chromosome, which > contains the DNA we test, she needed to find someone > to act as her "proxy". She found a male Davenport > cousin who was also descended from her g-grandfather > to donate his Y-DNA. A large percentage of our > participants are proxy's for women, so ladies - you > can get involved. > ----------------- > The next participant, kit # 68055, can trace his > ancestry back to Mahlon Davenport who was born about > 1797 in New Jersey. Mahlon moved to Luzerne County, > Pennsylvania in the 1820's and is believed to be the > grandson of Leonard Davenport. Leonard is part of > the Humphrey Davenport of Barbados line. The results > came back with a 36/37 match. So there definitely is > a Humphrey connection. > > While on the topic of Humphrey - we had some > exciting news in the past month. The Y-DNA for the > Humphrey line is very "unique". In three and a half > years, no individual tested in any other surname > project, (over 100,000 samples), has come close to > what the Humphrey line has. In other words - the > only results that are even remotely close to a > Humphrey descendent is another Humphrey descendent. > Well, that all changed last month. We suddenly had a > 37/37 match with a Calkins. A cousin of that Calkins > individual was tested and confirmed the match. They > don't match any other Calkins and can trace their > branch back to John Calkins, born in 1785 in Chenago > County, New York. > > A 37/37 Humphrey/Calkins match probably means a > common ancestor in the last couple hundred years. > Since we can track Humphrey and his descendents back > to the mid 1600's, it is unlikely they descend from > any recent Calkins. Most likely it was some kind of > "non-paternity event". Somewhere up the Calkins > line, the father was not who we thought it was. > There could be several possibilities. For example, > the Davenports and Calkins were neighbors. The > Davenports have an infant son - Jr. Something > happens to the Davenport parents and Jr becomes an > orphan. The Calkins take in Jr and give him the > Calkins surname. Now Jr Calkins has Humphrey > Davenport Y-DNA which is then passed down to his > descendents. Both Davenport and Calkins researchers > are now looking for both a place and time when both > lines could have come together. > ------------------ > Participant # 70488 is a Rev. John Descendent - Rev. > John > John > John > John > Deodate > Deodate. As > expected, he matched the other Rev. John's 12/12. > There has been much research on the Rev. John line, > and it is one of the few Davenport lines that can > actually document the connection to England. > However, we are very limited in the number of his > descendents in the DNA Project. We need more, coming > from multiple branches, to help verify our lone 37 > marker participant. > ------------------ > Finally, from England, we have #49751. He traces his > ancestry to Cheshire in the 1800's, but > unfortunately we don't have any more information. He > does match the other English Davenports, (which > match the Rev. John, Thomas of Dorchester, and > Albemarle's), on 37 markers. He is a definite > "person of interest" so we will continue to > investigate. > > While we're on the subject of English Davenports - > we have funding available to pay for tests for a > male Davenport descendent of Thomas Davenport of > Lower Withington. Thomas was born about 1700. If you > know of any potential candidates - please contact > me. > ------------------ > About six months ago, our testing company increased > their product line. They came out with a 67 marker > test. The previous high resolution test was 37 > markers. Generally, the more markers, the better. As > I mentioned in my last post : " It gives us more > tools to work with. One of the most useful features > of DNA testing is finding a mutation here or there. > Mutations are neither good nor good, they are just > minor changes. This mutation is then passed down to > all future generations of Davenport males. Thus, if > someone tested out to be a Pamunkey, a mutation > might help place him into a particular branch. This > will be especially useful for lines where few > mutations have been recorded, like the Thomas of > Dorchester group. We now have more "mutation > opportunities"." > > Anyway, over the next few months, we had many > participants upgrade to the 67 marker test. To date > we have the results back from 14 of them. Although > we really don't yet have enough results to compare > within the individual lines, we do have some > interesting results to report. > > At 37 markers, the Rev. John, Thomas of Dorchester, > and Albemarle lines were very similar, but they each > had one or two mutations to help distinguish them. > This group also matches several of our English > participants, but there just wasn't enough > information to zoom in on a connection. Now with the > 30 extra markers, we have found that the Albemarle's > appear to have a common ancestor with a participant > descended from the Davenports of Great Wigston, > Leicestershire, England. Currently we have > researchers on both sides of the Atlantic checking > into it. So this is also a call for English > Davenports - we need more samples!! > > One of the ongoing Davenport genealogy mysteries is > the parentage of Davis Davenport. His line does not > match any other Davenport line. So, not only have we > been comparing his descendents to each other, we've > also been watching for connections to other > surnames. The Pamunkey's have a fairly common set of > values for their Y-DNA and we get hundreds of "false > positives" for the 12 and 25 marker lower resolution > tests. As we increase the number of markers, these > tend to filter out. Now with 67 markers, the > Pamunkey's have a signal non-Davenport match - an > individual with the Lee surname - 64/67. This is > close enough to get serious about. We are waiting on > more information from the Lee participant. > ------------------ > This and all previous reports can be seen on the > News page at >http://www.DavenportDNA.com > > If anyone would like to join the DNA project or has > any questions please contact me. > > Bill Davenport > Davenport Surname DNA Project Administrator > >wbdave@aol.com > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to DAVENPORT-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com